RECENT  POSTS:  » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Nudging the gavel? CA official sends a friendly 'btw'

by Jeremy Hooper

We're pretty sure that following document, which we obtained by a public record request to the CA court, is mostly procedural and will have little bearing on the California Supreme Court's eventual outcome on the Prop 8 matter. However, it is still nice to see that the State Solicitor General is reinforcing the "equal protection" element of the Iowa Supreme Court marriage ruling, an apparent attempt to encourage the CA Supremes to follow suit:

Hooper Jeremy ResAttach 04-23-09

We'll have to wait and see if this Iowa reminder (or anything) tips the court towards fairness. Though we sincerely hope they recycle, both this paper and the fairness that they put forth last May.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Thanks so much. I am supposed to get court notices, but didn't get this one. I was wondering how that could be done. Posted EVERYWHERE. .... for whatever, good it is, as you say.

Posted by: LOrion | Apr 24, 2009 2:40:12 PM

I think the Iowa ruling only reinforces the SCOCA's decision to uphold prop 8. Because now they can point to their own ruling of last year as having influenced the rulings in CT and IA (both rulings referred to CA's re: Marriages case), and therefore feel as if with good conscience that they've advanced the issue. And they have, however, that doesn't negate the fact that upholding 8 causes a whole host of new issues for minorities in the state.

Posted by: Bruno | Apr 24, 2009 4:44:55 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails